Red Ed? Miliband may not even be a pinko
Posted on Monday 27 September, 2010
Filed Under New Labour
ON THE one hand, sections of a jubilant Labour left are turning cartwheels across the floor. On the other, the rightwing press is rehashing the kind of low level McCarthyite headlines not seen in this country since the early 1980s.
Both immediate reactions to the election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader highlight the lack of balance or historical rigour that prevails in political commentary in Britain today.
To the extent that Ed is not his brother – who of course stood in apostolic succession to Blair – then those who do not favour the continuation of New Labourism in its most anachronistic variant will regard his success as the least bad possible outcome of an unnecessarily protracted contest .
But there is little point in coming to firm judgement until we see what Miliband does in his new capacity. While it is good to hear him declare that ‘the era of New Labour has passed’, he has yet to specify with what it will be replaced. If there is to be a Milibandism, we so far have no real indication of what the parameters will encompass.
Ed’s parliamentary career has so far been short, and he was not around for the crunch votes of the first and second term. But it is fair to observe that nothing he has done since 2005 marked him out as a natural born boat rocker.
Perhaps he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he has been hiding his social democratic light under a bushel, thus accounting for the accusation that he is some kind of crypto-Bennite.
But look under his bed, and the reds are strikingly hard to find. An examination of his concrete track record suggests that little stronger than reheated Hattersleyism is set to feature on the Miliband menu.
Opinions will vary as to how far that can viable be described as a good thing, but it certainly does not constitute a ‘lurch to the left’ in any meaningful employment of the left-right continuum as a working analytical tool.
A minimal grasp of twentieth century British political history should represent some kind of prerequisite for punditry. Yet how many columnists would be able to fit Miliband into the spectrum of Labour leaders of the past? Ironically, one of the best places to glean that information the book ‘Parliamentary Socialism’, penned by Ed’s late father Ralph.
In short, Ed Miliband does not want to be either a Blair or a Brown, which is to his credit. Neither is he likely to transmogrify into a Foot or an Attlee or a Lansbury. Callaghan? Kinnock? Let’s not go there. The question is how inspiring the public are going to find a Gaitskell or a Smith in the crucial years ahead.
<<Go back
Comments
21 Responses to “Red Ed? Miliband may not even be a pinko”
Leave a Reply
My guess is that EM (or people around him) are thinking that they can shift the political centre leftwards, not through rebranding at the party level, but by attempting to rebrand the “middle class” as something closer to what “middle class” means in US politics (i.e. to borrow Paul Mason’s recent translation “US middle class” = “UK decent working class”. I imagine this will include all sorts of people failed by New Labour, particularly those put through the university system without a recognition of the class privileges required to benefit from a university eduction in economic terms. If the end of New Labour means anything to EM and pals, it probably means that.
It’s also interesting to note how he’s been using the issue of immigration as a lever into saying “people don’t hate immigrants, they want better housing, better working conditions, less agency workers” etc.
Not sure if any of this rhetoric will translate into a concrete shift leftwards, but at least it is semi-coherent and, to some extent, wrong-foots the anti-immigrant tabloid right.
Daily Mail…BREAKING NEWS!
“Affluent and aspirational to flee Ed’s Britain!”
Speaking on behalf of all those who did “just brilliant” in the Blair/Brown years of breakneck banksterism, off-shore torture and illegal wars, their spokesman, a very unhappy young man in his 40s (just call me “Davey M” ) said, “It’s going to be hell under Ed’s rampant leftism. No wonder Tony moved all his assets to the Caymans. I am truly ashamed to be (sort of) related to little Ed, he always was a bedroom Bennite. So I’m off to an ace job in EuroComm. For Christ’s sake, I even snogged bloody Ruth Kelly at Oxford to win votes! What went wrong? What happened to hope?
Surely “reheated Hattersleyism” does represent something of a “lurch” to the left by New Labour standards? Hattersley himself famously remarked that he’d moved from right to left in the Labour Party just by standing still.
How can this man become leader of the English Parliament’s Opposition when no one apparently has any notion of what he stands for politically?
What did they vote for exactly?
I’d like to see an intelligent, in-depth discussion with Mr Miliband about his late father’s Marxist politics, not as a red-baiting exercise rather simply in order to see what he thinks about it and where and why he disagrees.
English Parliament??
It was an important vote for the party’s future. Not because of what the vote was for – (I find it hard to see anything red in Ed) – but for what it was a vote against.
For the first time the national party voted against Blair, against Mandelson, against Campbell, against Straw, against Johnson, against the Hoons and Jowels, against the New Labour brand. Sure it was close, but the thousand that have left the party in the last decade didn’t leave because the party was too left wing so their vote wouldn’t have been going the Blairite way if they had still been around.
Maybe we can now drift away from the neo-liberal consensus that all the main parties had signed up for. That is why I suspect the press are trying so hard to pin down Ed Miliband’s views on the deficit. Their owners are getting scared that Labour isn’t going to play that game anymore.
Will Ed Miliband let us down? I’m sure he will, but hopefully members are a lot more cynical now and will not allow another Blair like false guru.
“But there is little point in coming to firm judgement until we see what Miliband does in his new capacity.”
Spot on!
However, it’s not reds you should look for under his bed but Charlie Wheelan – dread thought!
Well, we’ve got 5 years (yes, the full 5) to see the colour of Miliband’s money. In my wildest dreams I would hope he’ll work to articulate a 21st century social democracy that would inspire the millions who have turned away from politics completely, particularly those generations that have been shat on for the last 30 years. I certainly hope he’d take time to re-read a couple of his old man’s works at least.
“What did they vote for exactly?”
For me, it was pretty clear – the introduction of a Living Wage, state investment in green energy jobs and a promise to change the law around strike ballots.
Admittedly not bloody revolution, but three tangible things that will make a big difference to the lives of many working people.
That and a vote to reject the media and Mandelson’s control over the party was why Ed got my support.
“Surely “reheated Hattersleyism” does represent something of a “lurch” to the left by New Labour standards? Hattersley himself famously remarked that he’d moved from right to left in the Labour Party just by standing still.”
I agree with D.B., but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, there is ferocious campaign to maintain New Labour’s hold despite Milliband senior’s defeat. Blunkett’s less than gracious comments following the result shows how much the old guard resent ‘the new generation’. But to even achieve a Hattersleyite revolution will be a tough battle. As the BBC breakdown of the results in CLPs shows, after 16 years most CLPs backed David Milliband, although the MP vote was closer it was the union vote that delivered Ed the leadership. There is a not very hidden campaign to remove those pesky union votes. But it is not over, Ed Milliband’s victory was important, and he has taken the leadership at an important moment, just one month before a huge attack on public services. I have no doubt that there will be some dreadful announcements in the next few weeks, but lets keep our eyes on the bigger picture. The Blairites have now been defeated twice in leadership elections.
if proof were needed of the bankruptcy of social democratic reformist ‘politics’ as an answer to ingrained inequality this is it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/investmentinproperty/8013661/Buying-flats-for-children-at-university.html
their needs to be (alongside a dismantling of systemic structures) a thoroughgoing annihilation of certain parts of humanity on an individual basis. A dirty job but someone has to do it.
Poll: Swedish Wallander or Britisher Wallander?
Swedish for me.
Several politicians have become leader of the Opposition, even Prime Minister, without anyone having a firm idea of what they believe in.
In my opinion, the most important difference between the two Milibands is leadership style. David Miliband woul have retained the Presidential, uncompromising style of Blair and Brown. Ed Miliband will, I believe, be more a collegiate leader who allows and encourages a wide variety of opinions to compete in open debate, and does not exclude strong individuals who don’t necessarily agree with him to in favour of a cadre of yes-men.
I thought that Ed was quietly quite good as climate change secretary in the last govt. He still though might: a) be Labour’s version of Ian Duncan Smith or b) get to be PM and live up to the old joke that Ralph M proved Labour couldn’t deliver socialism in theory, his sons will prove it in practice.
Will – the Swedish Wallender definitely. Rachel Cooke in the New Statesman was good on why here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/television/2010/02/mankell-wallander-sweden-bbc
I voted for Ed – as member of UNITE>
I suppose the principle reason was that he did offer something that was not the Continuity Brown-Blair party. The other was that the alternative, advocated by the left, Abbott, was cuddly and fuzzy to the point of meaningless. I put her as second preference.
I agree that it is hardly a ‘lurch to the left’.
If Miliband were to take some steps towards social democracy – speaking naturally as a European democratic socialist which is not the same – he could do well to start with opposing Suffolk County Council’s plans to privatise all its services.
In the end is…more of the same.
“Influential backbencher Jon Cruddas yesterday warned that the party can’t “simply turn the page” from Blairism. He spoke out at a fringe meeting amid concern Miliband’s election may lead to a lurch to the left and after comments from the new leader that the New Labour era had “passed”…”Hopefully that is what he (Ed Miliband) meant, because simply turning the page and running to hit the rewind button to circa 1981, when we wanted to invite the Russians in and abolish the police, is not going to get us over the line.” (EH?) ~ Daily Record.
That Cruddas eh? What a Warwicker. An endlessly twisting coat of many colours.
In these dark times you have to accept tiny incremental steps.
In practical policy terms Miliband (how strange to write that and not be referring to Ralph) is indeed on the right of the Labour Party – but that really does make a difference when for the last 16 years that party has been run by and for people who desired nothing less than its liquidation.
What we probably should be asking is how far the party is dismantling its Stalinist internal structures – I’ve seen references to a review of Partnership in Power (although I suspect this is driven as much by poverty as principle – all those pointless Policy Forums were only possible because Lord Levy’s rich friends bankrolled them) – but what does this actually mean?
For some belonging to groups further to left than Labour, (not hard I know), it’s worth remembering that Peter Kenyon, a heavily losing candidate for reelection to Labour’s NEC, still polled more than 16,000 votes. Now I suspect 16,000 is more people than all the other left groups memberships added together.
Now Peter strikes me as a good socialist and a tireless fighter against the New Labour bureaucratic corruption of the party. Seems to me that if you are serious the fight should be inside the party and inside the unions.
Just eagerly awaiting to hear how ‘Red Ed’ defines an ‘irresponsible strike’, or indeed a responsible one.
Nothing at all to do with the system he props up of course. We just do it for the fun of losing days of pay.
Not holding my breath. Many of us I know could write his script for him.
Strikes. Putting our money and livelyhood where our mouth and heart is. Oh my.
‘Red’ Ed Milliband, the roasted chestnut’s from my strikers brazier in December, or even February, are yours first.
You only have to ask.